> From: Robert Simmons > > > "Gianugo Rabellino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im > Newsbeitrag news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Robert Simmons wrote: > > > Actually, I was proposign the removal of the avalon logging > > > mechanism completely. > > > > You'll have to provide a very good technical reason for that, much > > more than "I like Log4J better" or "Log4J is cool". Consider that: > > How about the fact that multiple layers of logging exacerbate > performance problems intrinsic to logging. Also how about the > fact that Log4j is faster
Have you ever done some serious tests that you can claim this? > and far more powerful and flexible > in production environments where you may want logging to go > to a specific server. Also how about the fact that most other > java products that log use log4j and very very few use avalon > logging. This allows a support center to set up a logging > monitor stations for system health monitoring. > > I think about the business applications of cocoon which are > far different than the open source programming aspects. > > > 1. Avalon logkit can use Log4J as the backend enging while, to the > > best of my knowledge, the opposite is not true; > > Then you have a multi-layer logging mechanism which is evil > for performance reasons. > > > 2. logging is tightly integrated inside the Avalon > lifecycle, which is > > tied to logkit. Changing it to Log4J would be painful to say the > > least. > > This point I cant speak to. Personally I know so few products > that use avalon that I wonder why cocoon hasnt gotten away > from it but perhaps that isnt possible. *shrug* Avalon is as > old as AWT and I think just as outdated. could you please fill in: AWT : Avalon = Swing : ? Sorry, I can't take it very serious if someone says we should remove Avalon from Cocoon. This would be the same if I say you should completly rewrite a working Swing application in favour of SWT ... > > > But, in case there are very good reasons for it, I guess no Cocoon > > developer was ever married to logkit, and a better solution > is always > > welcome. Let me be skeptical, though. :-) > > Skeptical is good as long as it doesnt change into stubborness. You say it - I hope it was meant in both directions. Cheers, Reinhard
